who supports right to choose

[Aphrodite1984 2]

Ok....So this Indian couple who gave up their girls is a WHOLE DIFFERENT STORY. This has nothing to do with abortion. My fiance is Indian and in India a HUGE value is placed on male children. Male children are expected to care for their parents when they get older (which is right away in this couple's case!) while female children require a large dowry to have them married, and when they are married they join the husbands family and are really no longer attached to their own parents. This is CULTURAL....not right, not wrong, it just IS. Things are changing, but I suspect this couple's age has something to do with their traditional views. What they are doing seems morally wrong to us, but in their own cultural and moral context it is completely logical and right. FYI telling a couple the sex of their child before birth is ILLEGAL in India because of the abortion rate of female children. Maybe its better they gave them for adoption....this is your argument right?

[MyTurn 4]

I didn't read all the threads, so maybe someone already asked this question; why the heck is this here? What does this have to do with Lap Banding? Who wants to know and why? What do you need to know this information for? I want to loose weight safely and I'm here for support and to share anything I learn along the way. What does that have to do with abortion?

[Aphrodite1984 2]

Gadget....I am confused about your argument here. Surely abortion is a better option than infanticide?

[Aphrodite1984 2]

MyTurn....I would suggest you read the title of this forum:

LBT Rants and Raves *** Off-Topic DEBATE AREA *** Want debate? Get it here. Gripe, complain, moan, fight, rant and rave. Enter at your own risk!

Thats why its here.

[pearlygirl 1]

Crude entertainment, lol!!

[brandyII 9]

Crude entertainment, lol!!

With all the good shows in repeats now what else can we watch?

[gadgetlady 4]

Gadget....I am confused about your argument here. Surely abortion is a better option than infanticide?

It's the same option. One just happens a few months earlier. I am not being glib when I say this. One of the arguments of those in favor of infanticide, or infant euthanasia, is that children (infants) don't know what it means to be alive, and therefore it doesn't violate any moral code to kill them. This philosophy of valuing human life for utilitarian reasons (only if it serves our purpose to do so) rather than valuing all human life simply because it is human life comes straight out of the abortion playbook and is the natural conclusion of a society that doesn't concern itself with the degradation of human life.

[MrsFlipFlops 2]

Yeah, um... I don't see how this article does any of that gadget. The couple gave birth to the babies. It doesn't matter the reason they gave them up, they did. I don't think it speaks to how people don't value life in utero, I think it speaks as to how a culture values female life perhaps. Actually, it speaks to how strong the drive is for a male to want his "seed" or line to live on.

If anything it's proadoption, we assume that they didn't know the sex of the baby previously (I really didn't know that Aphrodite, very interesting!).

So... my vote is- it doesn't have anything to do with abortion. Are we now going to get on all the people who have babies and give them up? Even I'm not willing to fight that fight. :thumbup:

[gadgetlady 4]

Yeah, um... I don't see how this article does any of that gadget. The couple gave birth to the babies. It doesn't matter the reason they gave them up, they did. I don't think it speaks to how people don't value life in utero, I think it speaks as to how a culture values female life perhaps. Actually, it speaks to how strong the drive is for a male to want his "seed" or line to live on.

If anything it's proadoption, we assume that they didn't know the sex of the baby previously (I really didn't know that Aphrodite, very interesting!).

So... my vote is- it doesn't have anything to do with abortion. Are we now going to get on all the people who have babies and give them up? Even I'm not willing to fight that fight. :w00t:

Oh believe me, I'd rather these people not parent those babies if they're willing to abandon them in the hospital because of their gender. And I am 100% pro-adoption and believe it to be an unselfish and commendable act. But just to clarify here: these people didn't place their babies for adoption. They abandoned them in the hospital, just walked out on them and left them there because they didn't want girls. Are the babies better off? Yes. Absolutely.

[MrsFlipFlops 2]

Well, I don't know the laws in the country where they gave birth, I'll grant that... however, abandoning a child in a hospital in many states is considered to be giving them up for adoption and making no claim on them. I was making assumptions based on the laws I know. The concept I believe is the same.

[Aphrodite1984 2]

Gadge....you just amaze me...

[BJean 16]

gadget when I said something about some of your posts and links not making any sense, you came back with something like: I didn't say it made sense.

I take that to mean that you'll post anything just to rile people up. It doesn't matter if it is relevant to the discussion as long as you can fan the fire with something that is completey outrageous in content.

If you do not see the difference between a fertilized egg, a human embryo and a baby that is fully developed, or even a person who is living and breathing outside the womb, then I understand why you do not believe that women should have the choice to end an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy.

But I do believe that there is a difference and in fact, many differences. They are not all the same. They may all be made up of human cells, but they are not all human beings. IMHO, of course. And I believe that my humble opinion is shared by more Americans than yours is. I could be wrong about that but at least I know that there has been no determination by science or human anatomy and physiology research that supports your viewpoint.

It is obvious that you are fully endoctrinated for the cause, that being to make abortion illegal, and you have all the hideous websites, links and graphics that have been compiled in order to shock people into becoming as outraged as you are at the idea of women having this basic control over their reproductive organs. I pray to God that people in your camp are never able to force your beliefs on the women of this world.

[gadgetlady 4]

If you do not see the difference between a fertilized egg, a human embryo and a baby that is fully developed, or even a person who is living and breathing outside the womb, then I understand why you do not believe that women should have the choice to end an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy.

But I do believe that there is a difference and in fact, many differences. They are not all the same. They may all be made up of human cells, but they are not all human beings.

Well, an infant isn't the same as an adult and there are, in fact, many differences -- but just because there are differences doesn't make an infant non-human. I asked a question earlier, in response to your statement:

I absolutely do care about unborn babies. It's undeveloped fertilized eggs that I do not believe have the same value as a living, breathing human being in every sense of the word.

The question was:

What's the difference between an "unborn baby" and an "undeveloped fertilized egg"? When does an "undeveloped fertilized egg" become an "unborn baby" in your mind? At what stage of development would you support the limitation or cessation of abortion?

Do you care to answer?

I know that there has been no determination by science or human anatomy and physiology research that supports your viewpoint.

Basic science supports the view that the thing growing in the womb is a human being.

It is obvious that you are fully endoctrinated for the cause, that being to make abortion illegal, and you have all the hideous websites, links and graphics that have been compiled in order to shock people into becoming as outraged as you are at the idea of women having this basic control over their reproductive organs.

I fully support women having control over their reproductive organs. I just believe that when another human being is involved (i.e. the baby), they are no longer just her organs she's talking about. Someone else's organs are involved. I also support full knowledge and information of what the abortion procedure is, which you love to call "hideous websites, links and graphics", but which is really just real and realistic representations (photos and descriptions) of what abortion is.

I was talking to someone last night about this issue. Right off the bat he called himself "pro-choice", but then we got down to brass tacks. I asked him what he thought the procedure of abortion actually was. He said, no holds barred and without any prompting from me, "killing a baby." Now THAT's endoctrination! When we can get the general public to subscribe to the belief that something is the killing of another human being AND should be someone's choice -- it's a testament to what a great job the abortion industry has done to secure their position in the public mind.

[pearlygirl 1]

BJean - Your last post made more sense than anything on all of these pages combined. It was worded perfectly and unlike so many of the other posts here, it did not sound like your intentions were just to be argumentative. Also, science is certainly on your side as far as determining when an embryo has developed into a "baby". Although you haven't stated exactly when you believe that happens, it seems only natural to assume(I know, bad to assume) that it isn't until some time much later than conception.

For instances of preterm labor or other conditions that warrant a very premature delivery, medical intervention to the preemie is only performed if the preemie has reached 24-25 weeks gestation. That said, I know of one 24 weeker who is home and thriving. My own daughter was born at 28 weeks and is absolutley perfect in every way(okay, I'm her mom...but really her growth and development is exactly where it should be).

From the moment my baby was conceived, she was a baby to me. That was after many fertility treatments, prayers and with the WILL and GRACE of my God. To another woman, who's pregnancy was unexpected or unplanned - that may not be the case. I don't hold my own morals, values, beliefs over the heads of everyone I encounter and because of that I 100% agree with your view of pro-choice.

Edited June 1, 2008 by pearlygirl

[BJean 16]

Pearlygirl I am very happy for you to have been able to bring your wonderful daughter into this world. I too have a daughter and I wouldn't trade her for anything. I am truly blessed by having her in my life! I appreciated you sharing your story, or at least a small part of it. You have had some first hand experience that gives your logic and beliefs some heavy duty credibility. I am much more impressed when someone says what they think instead of posting what someone else thinks.

gadget, the abortion industry, to my knowledge, does not go about trying to secure their "position in the public's mind" at all. However if you were to assume that they did advertise and spend a lot of money on trying to change people's opinions, as the anti-choice people do, and in the same manner as anti-choice people do, they would cite death statistics, grisly photos of newborn babies tossed into a trash bin, tubs filled with blood and a dying woman from a botched attempt at self-abortion, and on and on. But they don't. There is no need for them to do that.

The fact is that women sometimes have a need and they exist to help those women in need. There is a demand by virtue of failed birth control, rape, incest, and miriad other reasons too numerous to mention.

With the anti-choice movement, there is no built in need involved. The women who choose to give an unwanted baby life are not prohibited from doing do. No one is forced to have an abortion if they do not wish to have one. (Unless there is some parent somewhere who is forcing their child to have an abortion against her wishes.) The law currently allows women to decide for themselves (and for their fertilized egg). Anti-choice people are the ones who are trying to change things so they are the ones who are going to great extremes to influence the thinking of our society. And, I might add, they will stop at nothing.

As for your question to me about when I believe that life begins, I do not feel the need to make that determination. Besides, the answer has absolutely nothing to do with my belief that women have the right to choose, no matter what the circumstances. Although I do believe that after a certain number of weeks into a pregnancy, abortions should not be considered except for medical reasons. (And I do not believe that the government should be involved in those cases either.)

Just because you keep using terms like "killing", "death", "dismemberment", etc., it does not make them appropriate or even correct. They may well seem perfectly appropriate and correct to you, but to others they may not. I am one of the latter and that is why those inflammatory and distasteful terms seem purely like propaganda to me.

I do not view abortion in the same way that you do. And that is my perrogative. Even if the Supreme Court ruled tomorrow that abortion is nothing more than killing a human being and so they find it to be unacceptable, it would not change my belief that women should be the ones who determine whether they will or will not carry an unplanned, unwanted baby to full term. I do not believe that people who serve on the Supreme Court or people who serve in Congress or my Priest or my minister or even my Dad should be able to make a decision like that for me. And I sure don't think that you should be making the decision for women either. Help them yes, force them, no.